January 22, 2004
NNDC:
The New New Deal Coalition (James Pinkerton, 01/20/2004, Tech Central Station)
[F]or Democrats, here's the rub: Kerry and Edwards might be more attractive candidates in a general election than Dean, but that might not be saying much. The big fear that all thinking Democrats have is that the Republican, George W. Bush, has assembled his own updated version of the New Deal Coalition, the electoral alliance that dominated American politics for much of the 20th century. And if that's the case, then whomever the Democrats nominate this summer, it won't make much of a difference. [...][D]emocrats don't have to worry just about nominating Dean and getting whacked in November. They have to worry about nominating anybody -- and still seeing the Republicans cement what might be called the New New Deal Coalition (NNDC). What's that? The NNDC is the 21st-century alliance of white Southern Protestants and Northern Catholics forged by Bush and Karl Rove, an alliance that echoes the New Deal alignment put together by Franklin D. Roosevelt, starting in 1932. That partisan alliance brought Democrats victories in seven of the nine presidential elections from the 30s into the 60s.
But wait a second: didn't Bush lose the popular vote four years ago? And didn't he win the electoral college by just a smidgen? Sure he did, but that was then. Master-politico Rove never claimed that Bush was another FDR. Instead, Rove asserted that Bush was another William McKinley, the Republican elected to the White House in 1896, defeating Democrat William Jennings Bryan. Five years ago, as the Texas governor geared up to run, Rove thought of him as another McKinley, a Republican who would win the White House on a moderate domestic platform that would reel in immigrant Americans. In McKinley's time, of course, the immigrants were mostly from Europe; in our time, they're mostly from Latin America. But they had the same American Dream aspirations, Rove figured, and he was proven right.[...]
[I]n the last three years, Bush seems to have cemented his grip on much of the country. Between the economic boom, the war on terror, and his own personal style, the Connecticut-born/Texas-bred Commander in Chief has indeed taken command of the North-South Roosevelt alliance. He has Dixie in his back pocket; that's obvious, from Bill Frist to Tom DeLay to his own brother, Jeb. But crucially, W. also has much of the North, especially the "ethnics," who admittedly are now likely to have white-collar jobs in the suburbs. But even so, the whole ideo-political space held by, say, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Rudy Giuliani -- heavily Catholic, at least ancestrally -- likes Bush the way their grandfathers liked FDR.
And what do the Democrats have? For the most part, they have what Landon had seven decades ago: Yankees and blacks. After Dick Gephardt's pathetic fourth-place showing in Iowa, it's not clear that the Democrats can even count on the industrial unions anymore. And we'll have to wait and see how the Democrats do among Hispanics; Bush has certainly been courting them hard, the way that McKinley went after, say, German-Americans more than a century ago.
It's always interesting to see just how short the American attention span is. We'll allow Mr. Pinkerton to stand in here for nearly every pundit in America, but note that at the outset of his essay he suggests that the two senators--Kerry and Edwards--may be "more electable" than the governor (Dean). You've heard this kind of nonsense alot in the last few days and, being charitable, it's perhaps best to chalk it up to the lingering shock of Monday night. Suffice it to say, it's an antihistorical notion that a sitting senator is more likely to be elected president than a governor. Mr. Edwards at least has the advantage of having practically no meaningful career, but by the time the GOP gets done with John Kerry's voting record in the Senate he'll be nothing more than Ted Kennedy with a fresh liver. Posted by Orrin Judd at January 22, 2004 7:05 PM
You mean we're going to see more -- and better -- research along these lines?
http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200401220835.asp
Posted by: kevin whited at January 22, 2004 8:20 PMIt's hard for me to imagine Kerry exciting anyone enough to win a nomination for President. He's merely a face man for the Massachusetts political machine, a man chosen by the machine because of family wealth and connections, a record of heroic military service, and an unswerving willingness to do whatever the party bosses told him to do. And that's what he's done. He rarely varies from Ted Kennedy and never from the Democratic party leadership. He's always had the field cleared for him. This is, really, the first competitive political race of his life. I don't think a guy who only knows how to follow instructions can become a competitive threat to Bush.
That's why I think Edwards may win the nomination. Clark is kooky; Dean unsound; Kerry insipid. Who's left?
Posted by: pj at January 22, 2004 8:45 PMKerry is the Dems Bob Dole.
Posted by: M. at January 22, 2004 8:55 PMKerry: the politics of Dukakis in the body of an Ent.
Edwards: A newbie politician, just out of the shrinkwrap, who made his millions using junk science to make medical insurance more expensive.
Posted by: PapayaSF at January 22, 2004 9:08 PMI don't think Kerry and Dukakis are the same - Dukakis believed in his own politics; Kerry, I don't know. In a way that makes Kerry safer but also less inspiring. As President, he'd do what his advisors tell him. Who his advisors would be is unpredictable.
Papaya, your description of Edwards is spot-on but isn't that resume attractive to Democrats?
Posted by: pj at January 22, 2004 9:36 PMpj:
Lieberman.
If Dean and Clark complete their harikari, then a grown-up starts to look mighty attractive.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at January 22, 2004 10:08 PMOur tie-breaker was going to be whether Lieberman would finish ahead of Lyndon LaRouche.
Posted by: oj at January 22, 2004 10:13 PM"And what do the Democrats have? For the most part, they have what Landon had seven decades ago: Yankees and blacks."
Jews, they still have the Jews ...... maybe.
"Ted Kennedy with a fresh liver."
ROTFL
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at January 22, 2004 10:56 PMPinkerton's a nice guy, but he hasn't seen the long lost exit poll results from 2002, which I bought and crunched from raw data. With a sample size of 17,000, they give us the most accurate impression of what two years of Bush-Rove accomplished demographically.
Republican House candidates did about 4 points better in 2002 than in 2000 because they did 6 points better among white Protestants (69% vs. 63%), especially women. They actually did two points worse among white Catholics.
The stuff about immigrants is silly. The share of the total GOP vote that came from whites went up from 90% to 92%.
Posted by: Steve Sailer at January 23, 2004 1:15 AMFirst, doesn't Steve Sailer's post make sense of the administration's domestic policies. They are trying to retain and maybe increase the GOP's share of the white vote, particularly white women and white Catholics. War and tax cuts are probably the most effective tool to do so, but immigration and education are good signifiers to these groups that Republicans are not heartless beasts.
Second, Kerry did have a real fight against Weld for reelection last time, and came through in the end. He's a guy that no one particularly likes but no one particularly hates, either. That works for Democratic incumbents in Massachusetts, where the default vote is for Democrats and incumbents. It won't help him in this election, where the default vote is for Republicans and incumbents.
What we think about the Democratic nominee here is neither here nor there, but certainly every governor doesn't have a better chance than every Senator. Look at it as a good estimation of the President's chances that the only governor to get into the race was a loon who was mostly just looking to fill up some free time.
Posted by: David Cohen at January 23, 2004 9:37 AMThe great thing about Mr. Sailer is that the Mexicans are always about to take over until they don't turn up at the polls.
Posted by: oj at January 23, 2004 9:41 AMIf Kerry gets the nomination, or once it becomes apparent that he's got it locked up, will he stay in the Senate, or will he do a Bob Dole, and resign his seat?
Because I'm curious to see if the GOP has the guts and ability to bring up some votes designed to make him take a stand on some contentious issues. (The same for Edwards, but he's not running for reelection, and will be giving up his seat come January next anyhow, he'd be stupid to not resign.)
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at January 23, 2004 11:31 AMIf Pinkerton's conclusions are correct the machine Democrats should ensure Dean's nomination so that party insiders don't get hurt in the debacle. This would also teach the lefty kiddies to get back into line when Hilary steps up in 08 with a centrist agenda, whether they like it or not.
OJ, "John Kerry.... nothing more than Ted Kennedy with a new liver."
I think you've coined a great bumper sticker.
If John Kerry resigns and hands a Senate seat over to Paul Cellucci he'll be villified on the Left.
Posted by: oj at January 23, 2004 12:45 PM